|
|
|
|
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 11:19:32 PM | | When I was in college, several of the Christian fellowships on campus organized what was known as "Jesus Week." We had a Christian apologist address various questions and concerns about the religion. Wouldn't ya know it, the flood story became one of the big concerns. Although this apologist believed that it was factual, he conceded that the flood covered only the "known world" at the time. One student still voiced his concerns about the validity of the story. The apologist finally asked, "Is the flood story the only thing that's keeping you from Jesus?" Even in the height of my belief, I didn't count on the flood being a literally factual story. The point is that the Christian faith does not hinge on this story being true... or at least it shouldn't, but you wouldn't know it from some of the posters. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 11:37:03 PM |
"Is the flood story the only thing that's keeping you from Jesus?" What was the students reply?
Even in the height of my belief, I didn't count on the flood being a literally factual story Disbelieving not only authors of the Old Test. and the New Test as well, (many Books there confirm this story) might be a possible reason you no longer believe. ??
The point is that the Christian faith does not hinge on this story being true... or at least it shouldn't, but you wouldn't know it from some of the posters.
The Christian faith stands on the foundation that Its writers spoke Truth, instructed to do so by God, regarding all things of God. If you refuse to accept more than 6 Books in both Testaments, you qualify as rejecting the Whole as truth, including Christ, Who confirmed this event. IMHO
~Many believe that if even one word in the Bible is untrue, it proves It to be false and should be dismissed. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 11:40:04 PM |
Since you have not a Bible in your possession, you'll hardly be the one to debunk Noah's account if you have never studied the material or compared the facts in it to what you know..hardly a thorough conclusion on your behalf.
I don't have a bible in my possession for a similar reason I don't have my old Marvell comics in my possession. Read the bible often as a presbyterian, including the delusion of the ark, and found it to contain some of the most rediculous fantacies I'd ever read. Including my comics collection. What material other than bible shall I study. Already studied the bible, nothing worthy there. And I'll be more than happy to compare the facts but nobody has ever been able to produce one about the arc.
And as for forming thorough conclusions, have your "vast" studies wandered at all outside the bible before you formed your "thorough conclusion"? Navel archetecture for instance? Have you researched the volume required to house two of every animal? Did you form your "thorough conclusion" based on any substantial information or evidence anywhere other than the bible? Thorough conclusion?
Sincerely?
You betcha. Had he come up with the words that he claimed were in the bible, knew he couldn't, I'd have realized that my readings of the bible had missed something very substantial. You see, the thought of an intelligent designer preparing a place for me to live for eternity is quite appealing to me believe it or not. I continue to literally beg the faithful for something, anything, that my scientific, logical thought process can relate to. It would be so very simple if your god is cracked up to be what the bible says he is to provide you faithful with some evidence of his existence. But it never happens. All we get from the believers to argue against the science is quotes from the bible. We're simply speaking two different languages. This lastest junk about nuclear proliferation is the perfect example. First he uses a contention that the bible contains an utterence by christ of nuclear proliferation, don't get the point there either, and then when I call him on it he two steps into something about "word pictures" or some such drivell. Hell I don't even know what that is.
Even if I overnight you a copy of Gods Word, you will remain blind to Its wisdom, by solely seeking confirmation to discredit It.
I'm not seeking to discredit the bible. Alongside the koran and other religious writings I find it already to be incredible. How could I possibly discredit something that already holds no credibility at all as far as I'm concerned. I really don't seek anything to confirm or deny the bible. Other than the entertainment and amuzement I get by tossing these subjects back and forth with the faithful I don't pay the drivil in it much attention at all. | |
|
as~is
|
Joined: 12/1/2007
Msg: 79 | |
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 12:05:28 AM | What a weird and entertaining argument.
A. World viewpoint. Flood occurred in some capacity and from the viewer's PoV, it was the whole world. Some big catastrophic flood, but very likely ancient, far more than 4 thou years because anthropological evidence shows that stories similar to it go very very far back in man's semi-recorded history.
B. More and more, Biblical stories are proving to be highly factual, such as the Queen of Sheba who was thought to be a complete fabrication. Give the Bible some weight for oral history having a measure of truth. A measure.
C. As far as logistics and number of animals and carnivores not having food, etc., with the big guy providing miraculous intervention, I don't know any scripture in the Bible that instructs us to check our brain cells at the church door. At some point, fundamentalists are going to have to make a decision of discernment. Does this Bible story have merit in my life as an analogy/anthropological myth? Or must I believe in it as if it happened exactly as this (politcally corrupted english translation thousands of years removed from the actual event) says, in order for the tale to have merit in my life?
There is a common spiritual theme in the Bible. It says talk straight to God and do your growing from there. It says get your eyes off man and your eyes on God. God wrote the book in your heart, the Word is there, not in any bookm which, even if inspired by God, was nonetheless written by man. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 12:11:23 AM | Conversations about the Ark are a non starter. If somebody can't see how rediculous a story is when it contradicts known biology, structural engineering, history, environmental science, and pretty much the entire body of human knowledge (including physics). What can you possibly say to convince them? It's simply a dellusion, it's like trying to talk a schizoprenic patient into taking off the tin foil helmet.
The Ark does not work. If the sky is blue, and a book says it's red. The sky is still freaking blue. Their is no point in talking to the man who refuses to look up because he is afraid his faith in god will be shattered by it.
<div class='quote'>Since you have not a Bible in your possession, you'll hardly be the one to debunk Noah's account if you have never studied the material or compared the facts in it to what you know..hardly a thorough conclusion on your behalf.
If the sky is blue. I don't need to know the if the bible s ays it's scarlet or cherry red. It doesn't matter.
The Ark does not work. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 12:27:17 AM |
Read the bible often as a presbyterian, including the delusion of the ark, and found it to contain some of the most rediculous fantacies I'd ever read. Including my comics collection. Do you imagine that you would even consider, for a second, spending hours in debate with people who claimed that Marvel was God? Why? Would you feel the need to defend your position as a nonbeliever? Would said debates cause many to become outraged? No? Why?
You stated that Biblical accounts were even more ridiculous than that of Marvel, correct? The possibility that you feel it important to discredit the Bible while calling Its followers delusional, should motivate you to question, why?
Already studied the bible, Honestly? Dont make me test you!  You have genuinely "studied" It? All of It?
And as for forming thorough conclusions, have your "vast" studies wandered at all outside the bible before you formed your "thorough conclusion"? Little, but yes. I'd like to add that the Department of Treasury trains their executive counterfeit specialists by having them study actual genuine bills for months, being then experts at spotting fake ones in seconds. By studying the real thing, one will detect the counterfeit almost immediately.
Navel archetecture for instance? Have you researched the volume required to house two of every animal? Did you form your "thorough conclusion" based on any substantial information or evidence elsewhere?
Have you had complete formal study in Christology, Theology, Christian Apologetics, spent approximately 1 hour every day in my private study of the Bible?
I dare say no. I have. Let us do the math together.
You see, the thought of an intelligent designer preparing a place for me to live for eternity is quite appealing to me believe it or not. I continue to literally beg the faithful for something, anything, that my scientific, logical thought process can relate to. What you seek you will never find, doll. I could weep. God alone can only give what you need to confirm and He will not until you believe in faith. After doing so, your eyes will see things most never even imagine. *Heaven did not draw me to Him, His love and call of my name did. Seek Him. He will NEVER fail to answer. Never. But do so willing to accept, doll. If He showed Himself to you, before conversion, faith would be worthless and robbed of the power to save.
I'm not seeking to discredit the bible. Being the first step to Him.  | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 12:28:57 AM | Christology, Theology, Christian Apologetics, spent approximately 1 hour every day in my private study of the Bible?
What the hell does this have to do with boat design?
I'm curious, from studying the bible do you think you could build a cruise ship? | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 12:45:53 AM | If somebody can't see how rediculous a story is when it contradicts known biology, structural engineering, history, environmental science, and pretty much the entire body of human knowledge (including physics). What can you possibly say to convince them? The Global Flood account described in the O.T has not been disproved by: biology, structural engineering, history, environmental science, and pretty much the entire body of human knowledge (including physics)
Today there are hundred of new finding, sought by many including Christian Scientists that now have debunked many formally held beliefs. You have secular scientists that insist their finding remain solid. There are hundreds of others who contest those things but are disregarded as rubbish do to theories built on erroneous finds, such as the simplicity of a single cell.
What can you possibly say to convince them Convince me that my God is a liar and over 7 billion of His followers have been deceived by a bunch of fishermen, a carpenter and old man who built a boat.
If the sky is blue, and a book says it's red. The sky is still freaking blue You and I can both see that the sky is blue. Were you there to attest to this flood, thousands of years before birth? You take the words of the almighy scientific community of ages ago, I'll take the Creator of this world.
If the sky is blue. I don't need to know the if the bible says it's scarlet or cherry red. It doesn't matter. Again, worthless comparison. You can SEE that the sky is blue. Today.
The Ark does not work. Keep repeating that, you may find that one day you'll wonder why you felt the need to defend its lack of existence....
What the hell does this have to do with boat design?
I'm curious, from studying the bible do you think you could build a cruise ship?
Cute, doll. (go back and read all of that post, not just the independent sentences that are fun to pick out and dissect into hogwash, darlin.)
As far as logistics and number of animals and carnivores not having food, I have already addressed the issue of numbers of critters but overlooked the question regarding carnivores, my bad.
~Possible theories include: 1)Most all animals are capable of long periods of hibernation, while needing less food. 2) The population of rabbits and similar animals alone could have been used for providing essential meat for carnivores.
There are others as well. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 1:24:59 AM | The Global Flood account described in the O.T has not been disproved by: biology, structural engineering, history, environmental science, and pretty much the entire body of human knowledge (including physics)
Actually it was, fairly handily, and it was pointed out how in this very thread at least twice already. The sum total of Biblical literalist refutation has boiled down to ignoring empirically supported theories and offering alternate theories which are NOT supported. Enough water to force the atmosphere into space, then promptly vanish? A flood which affected everything everywhere at the same time, yet carefully left entire fossilized ecosystems neatly stacked upon one another? A literal WALL of falling water which somehow deposited fossils and sediments on mountaintops? An unfathonable amount of fresh water which somehow didn't wipe out the countless saltwater species which live now? An ark which held a minimum of two each of "kind" of animal, AND all their food for most of the year? A rescue effort which required countless species to cross thousands of miles of land, thousands more of lethal saltwater, survive in a fairly hostile environment in a ship for most of a year, and then cross said lethal saltwater AGAIN to get to their current homes? Biblical literalism has never heard of Occam's razor.
Today there are hundred of new finding, sought by many including Christian Scientists that now have debunked many formally held beliefs.
Exactly as worded, this MIGHT be so. As probably intended, it is outright false.
"sought by many including Christian Scientists" I take to mean "cherry picked by creationists in order to shoehorn into their pre-established unscientific conclusions". Good luck disproving me on this. "Debunked" is also entirely the wrong word, since all of these attempts can be clearly shown [and HAVE been] to be "bunk" themselves.
Convince me that my God is a liar and over 7 billion of His followers have been deceived by a bunch of fishermen, a carpenter and old man who built a boat.
First, that number is a tad off. That's the entire population of the planet, most of whom are not Christian, a vast amount are not of any Abrahamic faith, and even many among those do not believe the Noachian tale to be literal. There's no need to call your God a liar, since HE didn't write the book, and HE hasn't chosen to take every story within it as literal. If it wasn't literal in Hebrew, how did it get to be after it was translated into English? I wouldn't be too worried about being deceived by a carpenter for whom there is no solid evidence of his existence much less the nature of his existence, and not a shred of the literal existence of Noah. No-one was deceived - the story was just edited until those who wished to believe, could. Too bad it was so piss poor that anyone with a critical mind for logic or evidence will find it piss-poor for literal truth.
Were you there to attest to this flood, thousands of years before birth?
Empirical evidence and theories with reliable predictive value - science has them, the Bible and a Noachian flood do not.
You take the words of the almighy scientific community of ages ago,
Predictive and reliable - check!
I'll take the Creator of this world
Unsupported assumption based upon an unsupported assumption. Utterly unreliable and completely unpredictive - check!
So when you start the car, get on board a plane or sailboat, or boot your computer, did you rely on the predictive nature of God's power, and pray for each of these to work reliably? Or did you just assume they would, based upon all the science that went into making these things in the first place? Science only works when it's convenient for your faith, right?
Again, worthless comparison. You can SEE that the sky is blue. Today.
The analogy might be a little off, but any analogy which does not include the Bible WOULD be, and which did would be dismissed...which you did anyway. The analogy is, however, appropriate. Blue is blue by definition, even if the Bible says it's red. The Noachian flood is not just implausible, but impossible, even if the Bible says it's real.
Cute, doll. (go back and read all of that post, not just the independent sentences that are fun to pick out and dissect into hogwash, darlin.)
Okay, so it's ALL hogwash. The point is that studying the Bible will teach you nothing about engineering or science. Studying engineering or science WILL teach you something about what theological claims are scientifically or mechanically impossible.
As far as logistics and number of animals and carnivores not having food,
I have already addressed the issue of numbers of critters but overlooked the question regarding carnivores, my bad.
Don't leave out the treading water bit. The inch-long frogs crossing thousands of miles of South America, thousands of miles of salty Atlantic, and then returning? Or heat-intolerant salamanders leaving cold mountain streams, crossing all of North America and the salty Atlantic, then the warm salty Mediterranean...and back? Maybe the Earth just grew a hell of a lot after the flood. That would solve the problem of where all the water came from and went. But then, where'd all the LAND come from?
~Possible theories include: 1)Most all animals are capable of long periods of hibernation, while needing less food.
False. The majority do not. Most species which hibernate, aestivate, or brumate belong to compact taxonomic groups [such as many, but not all, sciurid rodents]. It is likely that creationists would call each of these groups a "kind". Deer don't hibernate. Cats don't hibernate, monkeys don't, the vast majority of lizards, snakes, amphibians, birds, antelope, viverids, mustelids, etc...do not. It's just NOT that easy, and there's no way you can make it that easy.
2) The population of rabbits and similar animals alone could have been used for providing essential meat for carnivores.
There are others as well.
I'll just bet that lions, leopards, cheetahs, tigers, lynx, hyenas, dogs, foxes, jackals, and wolves were EACH considered a "kind", since all of these were known to biblical writers. You'd feed and breed enough bunnies to feed ALL of these carnivores for most of a year? Eight people are going to feed, tend, and shovel shit of these thousands of animals? It would be LITERALLY a full time job for just a couple dozen species, much less that required in this tall tale.
There's no need to disprove the Bible. The faithful do a good job of that just by showing the entire world just how ludicrous some of the claims are. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 1:27:45 AM | fitman2005, this is aimed at you,
your analytical scientists have no comparison to what pertains to that book and the things existing as that book states. All the data gathered as 'evidence' against that book will fail IMO. So just keep believing in those scientists and see how conclusive or NOT there findings were.
Mate, do you honestly believe that the bible is the repository of all knowledge? I can honestly tell you that science is not based around trying to disprove the bible. It's purpose is to allow us to understand and thus utilise our environment easier, more efficiently etc. To discount science as being completely irrelevant and nonsensical is to me, narrow minded.
I do not believe there is anything wrong with the MESSAGE of the bible, just so long as it isn't taken literally ALL THE TIME. Being raised in a Catholic family, I've noticed that this has actually become the more recent skew: The bible holds a meaning, and not all of its stories are based on full truths.
excuses excuses. Actually, there is alot of 'grey' area here on this earth that you will probably learn to play with.
I know there's a lot of grey. I often use it myself. I just find it amusing that in trying to discredit me, you've basically gone and condoned the 'convenient interpretation' of the bible. You believe it in its whole and literal truth when it suits you, and when it doesn't, well, it's not such an issue, it's an old passage, irrelevant to today's Western society etc. You believe so vehemently in the actuality of Noah's Ark, so why not everything else in there? Is there content you deem less true in the Bible than the rest?
Moreover, are you accusing Moses, whom God dictated the 10 commandments to of being a liar, or any less truthful in translating the word of the Lord? | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 2:34:48 AM |
Again, worthless comparison. You can SEE that the sky is blue. Today.
I can see their isn't enough water to cover the earth. I can see that their are too many species to fit in an ark in the size stated in the bible. I can see that animals require food to survive. I can see that an entire classification of animals exist on Australia, which would have no means of getting their if the flood accounts were true.
I can see that you don't know anything about a large number of sciences, yet you think bible study should allow you to be taken as an authority above people in their expertise.
So I ask you again, can you design a cruise ship due to your bible study? | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 3:23:20 AM | If the sky is blue. I don't need to know the if the bible s ays it's scarlet or cherry red. It doesn't matter.
Why are you arguing about what the bible says on Noah's Ark.
You do not even care what the bible says about the color of the sky.
It doesn't matter
So don't worry about what the bible says about the Ark.
I know I don't lose sleep over what the bible says. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 4:51:44 AM | This thread is really funny. Why would people be so motivated to prove/disprove a biblical story I'll never know.
However, lets stay that the bible is correct and it did happen. God used his omnipotence to make it so.
My question is simply why?
If we do suppose it happened about 5000 years ago then there were about 20 million people around at this time. Now God was so pissed off with these people he sort to kill most of them by drowning...........a very nasty way to die. Not just the sinful ones either. Children, new born babies, almost all living things that he had created some 1400 years earlier.
So why did he have to kill them in such a way? Why didn't he just make the sinful ones vanish?. The fact that he would even entertain such an act is basically admitting that he f**ked up in his design in the first place.
Jump forward 3000 years and there are 200million people.
Again, they are a nasty bunch of sinners but drowning obviously didn't work the last time so this time God sends his son to absolve the world of sin.
Again, why would he do this? It's just re-emphasizing how bad your design was in the first place and is like trying to put a plaster (band-aid) over the problem.
Maybe that's why 'God' hasn't been back since. He's walked away from the problem because surely with 6.8billion people on the planet there is one heck of a lot more sin now.
On the whole, he don't sound like right clever guy this here 'God' and he's a quitter......Oh I forgot, mysterious ways & all that  | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 5:25:29 AM | Well.. the Noah's ark think has been done before. I remember going to a movie about it when I was a kid and remember "In Search Of" epsodes devoted to it....
I will comment on the direction I think "The History Channel" is taking in general though... More and more I have seen them doing shows on the fantastic;
I'v also seen them take liberities with history drawing conclusions about what this civilization was like; what this or that looked like.... rather tthan just presenting th evidence. ("We now know what this buuilding looked like orr how this happened"... is one of their favorite lines) I guess they are just trying to get ratings... and to use their fancy computer graphics.... but if I want to watch a show or bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster... I can go to the sci fi channel.... When I go to "The history Channel " I expect objective , honest reporting and not feeling like I'm watching a side show
for instance... several years the person who took that now famous head and neck shot of the loch ness monster finally admitted it was a hoax.... that was the original photo that started all the hype.... But the History channel even though this sends a "investigative team" to explore loch ness... and does a entire show about searching for the monister... even after knowing t was all a hoax....
I expect that kind production on the sci ffi channels "ghost Hunter" show... not the history channel... Too much ratings grabbing, too much sensationalism
DK | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 6:49:33 AM |
Actually it was, fairly handily, and it was pointed out how in this very thread at least twice already. I've given credible theories and findings here as well, that you have not provided disproof nor even personally addressed them
An unfathomable amount of fresh water which somehow didn't wipe out the countless saltwater species which live now? How would one prove how many species did in fact die out during this flood?
An ark which held a minimum of two each of "kind" of animal, AND all their food for most of the year? Again, I have already addressed this in previous posts, doll.
A rescue effort which required countless species to cross thousands of miles of land
And this one as well....(get a Hymie, Frog Man)
sought by many including Christian Scientists" I take to mean "cherry picked by creationists in order to shoehorn into their pre-established unscientific conclusions". Apart from the word "unscientific", I agree. However, Secular Scientist do as well. Your point?
First, that number is a tad off. That's the entire population of the planet, most of whom are not Christian, Today. God's had followers since the day Adam opened his eyes, however the current population of "deceived, ignorant and what was that other one?? Ahh, yes, delusional is 2,135,783,000
There's no need to call your God a liar, since HE didn't write the book, My God, Jesus referred back to "the book", the Old Testament and called upon it as "God's Word", so yes, in order to reject it as Truth, one must believe Jesus/God a liar. IMHO
Science only works when it's convenient for your faith, right?
No Science works when it's scientist dont manipulate it by continuing to ignore new evidence to justify themselves.
Deer don't hibernate. Cats don't hibernate, monkeys don't, the vast majority of lizards, snakes, amphibians, birds, antelope, viverids, mustelids, etc... Irrelevant to my statement. These animals would not need animal protein in order to survive.
I'll just bet that lions, leopards, cheetahs, tigers, lynx, hyenas, dogs, foxes, jackals, and wolves
You'd feed and breed enough bunnies to feed ALL of these carnivores A grand total of a whopping 20 animals?
Eight people are going to feed, tend, and shovel shit of these thousands of animals? It would be LITERALLY a full time job Errr..like they had anything else to do?
for just a couple dozen species, much less that required in this tall tale. Exaggeration to that level to childish, doll. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 7:36:34 AM |
I've given credible theories and findings here as well, that you have not provided disproof nor even personally addressed them
I do apologise if we've missed any, but if you'd like to re-iterate, I'm sure we'd more than gladly do them justice.
How would one prove how many species did in fact die out during this flood?
That doesn't really address his point i.e. that the volume of freshwater over the entire planet would kill all the saltwater fish existing today, many of which have actually existed for over 65 million years (as a lineage).
If the flood did occur, all we'd have to do was find that layer of sediment that was the same age, and there should indeed be thousands of fossils in exactly the same sediment, of exactly the same age and this layer should be universal across the world.
No Science works when it's scientist dont manipulate it by continuing to ignore new evidence to justify themselves.
I'm sorry, I fail to understand how we're ignoring new evidence at this point? We haven't exactly clapped our hands over our ears and sang lahlahlah at this point. What we're trying to do is argue the impossiblity of Noah's Ark based on constraints of reality. That's it. None of us really has an agenda which we're trying to justify...
Irrelevant to my statement. These animals would not need animal protein in order to survive.
Errmmm...Cats do as far as I know. Vegetarian ones don't do too well. But I'm fairly sure that lions, leopards, hyenas and all those other African ones wouldn't have a need to either. Bit hot out that way, see?
A grand total of a whopping 20 animals?
Alright, well, captive lions and tigers (therefore cats that size) generally require 9-18lb of meat a day (bones included), so let's say the lions and tigers need roughly 15lb of meat a day: 60lb.
The cheetah and leopard, wolves and hyenas are all more or less the same size, and of course, smaller than lions or tigers, so we'll cap their food at 5lb each:
40lb.
The jackals, foxes, dogs and lynxes (not to mention that there are several varieties of each) will require roughly 2lb of flesh a day (more for the dogs and lynxes and less for the foxes cos they're tiny)? So: 16lb.
So in total, there's 146lb, or more or less 75kg of meat and bone that each would require a day. Those rabbits had better be given some bunny viagra, eh? That and they'll need to grow up REAL fast...
Errr..like they had anything else to do?
I'll pay that, it's actually quite amusing... | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 10:20:32 AM | Those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible will not be shaken by any other sort of evidence, so instead why don't we take the story of the flood as given:
"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to His heart. So The Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." (Genesis 6:5-7 RSV)
And along with God who so loved mankind that he gave his only begotten son to redeem us, let's ask what sort of God is this?
If his powers are such as recorded in the story of the flood, and his love is such as indicated in Jesus' story, did he not have the power and the will simply to reform our hearts? | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 11:26:43 AM | Do you imagine that you would even consider, for a second, spending hours in debate with people who claimed that Marvel was God?
Could be enteresting but not as many around as the faithful. But if they were to try to shove their "beliefs" down my throat and threaten that I believe as they do or else like so many religious folk have done over the years then you bet, I'll take on thier delusions too.
Would said debates cause many to become outraged?
Likely not. They do not adhere to a group who have been responsible for so many atrocities against humanity as do those who so proudly join the major religions. I doubt that worshipers of the superheros have committed many dastardly deeds in the name of superman or batwoman and justified it as spiderman's will over thousands of years. So I would not be so cantankerous about working for the demise of these instutions so that in my belief the majority of wars will cease to exist and the world that I live in will be a more peaceful, tolerant one.
You stated that Biblical accounts were even more ridiculous than that of Marvel, correct? The possibility that you feel it important to discredit the Bible while calling Its followers delusional, should motivate you to question, why?
The why is that the accounts in the comics espouse moral and ethical values that do not conflict with mine. From the few episodes I've read all of the heros promote truth justice and the American way. They do not claim an elitism similar to a christian nazi concentration camp guard who escorts a family of jews to the gas chamber simply because they do not believe as he does. He even thinks that since he accepts jesus as his savior and the son of god, he need only confess his sin to be forgiven and allowed to dwell in a peaceful heaven for ever when he dies. Furthermore, he is confident that the innocent jews who've never harmed a human will burn in hell for eternity for not believing precisely as he doses. Just sick and I will argue against such dogma vigorously.
Honestly? Dont make me test you! You have genuinely "studied" It? All of It?
Yep read it all as a presbyterian. Genuinly studied it? Guess that would depend on what you regard as genuine study. You can test me of course but don't bother. I'll fail misearbly. For the most part I've spent my entire adult life studing the sciences to look for explanations of our universe and have done my best to put the nonsense in the bible and the koran, read most of that too, completely out of my mind. When I discuss the bible, I do so from my reasoning not the lack of reasoning that I feel the faithful make use of to argue thier point by countering everything that they dissagree with by quoting scripture. So my reasoning being in line with science, I have no reason to quote scripture much less know anything about them. I did not come up with my conclusions that the ark is nothing but nonsense by reading the bible. I came to that conclusion because of my limited understanding of science.
We simply speak different languages you and I. The thoughts that help form my sentences are based on science and my form of reason and logic. I see it that your words are based on your lifetime indoctrination of the "truths" contained in the scriptures.
Little, but yes. I'd like to add that the Department of Treasury trains their executive counterfeit specialists by having them study actual genuine bills for months, being then experts at spotting fake ones in seconds. By studying the real thing, one will detect the counterfeit almost immediately.
Trying to understand how that has anything to do with this discussion other than that it seems to me the faithful continue to study the fake ones so they will never be able to detect a real one if it slaps against thier forehead. At least I have read all that you have in the bible yet you describe your studies of the sciences as "little". Also, I have never insisted that what I've studied in the sciences are true or factual. Only that they provide to me a plausible, possible explanation of things like the origin of the universe and the acension of the species. I simply see the bible's accounts of the same issues as highly implausible but I've never stated that it is impossible that god does not exist. So my mind is open to the possible yet unlikely prospect.
You and the other faithful on the other hand insist that the teachings of the bible are true and factually accurate and completly and closemindedly reject anything that science says that conflicts with the bible. So anything is possible for me. Only god is possible for you.
Have you had complete formal study in Christology, Theology, Christian Apologetics, spent approximately 1 hour every day in my private study of the Bible?
I dare say no. I have.
Well congratulations on your studious work. My grand daughter can spend hours reading fairy tales and the adventures of ficticious beings as Harry Potter as well. I don't search her little books for answers anymore than I'd bother to spend any time with the bible. I look for answers where I think I'm most likely to find them. The koran conflicts in many ways with the bible. Do you spend an equal amount of time with it as you do with the bible? Me thinks not but either these muslim jihadists are correct or the crusaders, inquisitors and the Salem judges and executioners were. If it were at all likely that either are correct that is. No. I'll spend my available study time with the sciences just as you choose not to.
What you seek you will never find, doll.
Finally. A likelihood that we can both agree on. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 12:06:42 PM |
Actually it was, fairly handily, and it was pointed out how in this very thread at least twice already. I've given credible theories and findings here as well, that you have not provided disproof nor even personally addressed them
Credible? Not in the least. Nor have you addressed any of the most glaring issues. No-one has actually given a plausible, rational, physically possible solution to, for instance, the amount of rain. It HAS been shown to be a physical and mathematical impossibility. No argument has shown otherwise, so you're not in special company on this point. That's just ONE issue, and it's one of many which destroys the story all by itself. In any case, let's address your "credible theories and findings", shall we?
An ark which held a minimum of two each of "kind" of animal, AND all their food for most of the year? Again, I have already addressed this in previous posts, doll.
Indeed...like this?
and manpower to feed and water Noah's family included eight. What about the waste? The thought of a broom and sweeping crap into the sea come to mind. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage
So, that's TWO boxcars of shovelling per day. One for food, one for crap. That's not counting all the live prey or vegetation which can't be stored like dry goods. This is a ship of at least two floor levels. If there's an uninhabited lowest level, seepage and urine will need to be carried up at least one level and bailed. Solid wastes will need to be carried to the nearest door or deck well above waterline. They're not living on a sundeck.
Let's assume 50,000 animals
Your padded number? So when did you last spend one full day shovelling? For the sake of simplicity, start in the morning and shovel until noon. Carry what you shovel to the other side of the yard, and dump it. At noon, reverse the process. Do you think you and seven others could fill a boxcar in the morning, and another in the afternoon? For a year without stopping? I've spent more than one day feeding and shovelling, and I'm quite fit, and I'm quite sure that eight people could NOT do this on a multi-deck ship carrying 2000 animals, much less 50000. That doesn't even account for all the other tasks, like ship maintenance and actual animal care [sickness is almost guaranteed in cramped confinement, and fitness is highly likely to decline for EVERY species larger than a couple pounds].
You've given an explanation, but it's NOT credible.
Why would they have had to have been?
To treat the diseases and parasites, ensure exercise, make sure nutritional needs are met. These are challenges even when you have a zoo staffed with trained professionals and less than 5000 animals. Those directly involved in animal care tend to number well more than eight.
Ahhh but as a believer in Evolution surely you see the irony in that statement.
Not so much. Evolution is highly supported by evidence and logical conclusions. The Ark has neither.
Creationists have a trump card though. A miracle happened. True but Ive not been forced to use it. ;)
Not overtly; but the explanations in favor of the ark, by yourself and by others, require it. No-one has offered a solution to the volume of water, which doesn't defy basic physics.
dinosaurs did not actually exist while man was around Mere opinion, doll.
Well, there's no evidence they co-existed, and plentiful evidence they did not and could not. That makes it a bit more than "mere opinion".
An unfathomable amount of fresh water which somehow didn't wipe out the countless saltwater species which live now? How would one prove how many species did in fact die out during this flood?
Already answered, but I'll repeat. They live NOW, therefore they DIDN'T die out. An extra five mile depth of freshwater would have killed them, and the many thousands of exclusively marine and brackish organisms alive now would not exist. Your flood killed them...but they live. Just like the many animals which would have drowned in the flood, or drowned on the way TO the ark, or drowned on the way FROM the ark, or would be killed by crossing saltwater on the way. Any way you cut it, your "rescue" effort would actually KILL most species. Yet here they are. Odd that so many things live now which would have died in a global flood, while so many died which would have survived a global flood. Odd, unless you take the most parsimonious explanation which agrees with the evidence: there was no global flood.
A rescue effort which required countless species to cross thousands of miles of land And this one as well....(get a Hymie, Frog Man)
Right...thusly?
It should also be considered that many animals can hibernate. Additionally, predators and prey have been known to habitat peacefully together during situations of stress like fire, flood, or earthquake. In the Ark, normal animal behavior would probably have been different from normal. Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark.
Very few animals hibernate. I addressed this.
Predator and prey CAN coexist. Unless the predator is hungry. There are plenty of predatory animals which I know can't be trusted for one day, much less a year, even well-fed. And they DO need to be fed.
Perhaps God used their migratory instincts? No migratory instincts will carry a one inch frog 12000 miles, particularly when thousands of those miles are salt water. If it didn't dry up or dehydrate from the salt, it would drown. Yes, frogs drown. Call in that miracle any time now.
sought by many including Christian Scientists" I take to mean "cherry picked by creationists in order to shoehorn into their pre-established unscientific conclusions". Apart from the word "unscientific", I agree. However, Secular Scientist do as well. Your point?
Does that mean you're fine with a priori conclusions, and the selection of evidence to support them? That is, by definition, "unscientific".
However, Secular Scientist do as well
Sure. And because of the scientific method and the peer review process, their deceptions and errors are quickly pointed out. By the scientific community. The same community happens to treat creationist and Noachian claims just the same, but the "Christian scientists" are more consistantly guilty. The only imbalance in treatment is due to the fact that creationist claims are so frequently fallacious, erroneous, and biased, that EVERY one of them is automatically suspect...with good reason.
There's no need to call your God a liar, since HE didn't write the book My God, Jesus referred back to "the book", the Old Testament and called upon it as "God's Word", so yes, in order to reject it as Truth, one must believe Jesus/God a liar. IMHO
Care to show us exactly where Jesus told us Noah's ark was completely factual? Care to show us he existed, or that he was God? Or that God exists? Maybe you could show us just that he wrote the New Testament? In English? Or translated the Old Testament into English. Maybe you can show why the Old Testament, in one of its original languages is not considered literal truth, while both Old and New when translated into English are? "Cinderella" doesn't become a real person when the story is translated into Swahili, although interestingly, her sable slippers became glass when translated into English.
Science only works when it's convenient for your faith, right? No Science works when it's scientist dont manipulate it by continuing to ignore new evidence to justify themselves
Which is what "Christian scientists" have done, and you've repeated...while actually dodging the issue. Strawman fallacy. No good scientist has to manipulate or ignore evidence in order to refute noachianism or creationism. The latter have so many built-in flaws that an intelligent 1o year old could cut them apart.
Deer don't hibernate. Cats don't hibernate, monkeys don't, the vast majority of lizards, snakes, amphibians, birds, antelope, viverids, mustelids, etc... Irrelevant to my statement. These animals would not need animal protein in order to survive.
False. In fact, there are only two herbivores on that list and one omnivore. The remainder are almost exclusively carnivorous, often on highly specialized prey types. Each of those groups contains a wealth of species, many of which would have been Biblical "kinds". To pick a few:
Too many frogs to list, which specialize in ants or termites.
Two frogs which specialize in snails.
Several lizards which specialize in snails.
Snakes: several egg specialists. Many snake specialists, a few reptile egg specialists, slug specialists, snail specialists, ant specialists, centipede specialists, scorpion specialists...
All of these would have drowned getting TO the ark, coming FROM the ark...or being abandoned outside the ark.
I'll just bet that lions, leopards, cheetahs, tigers, lynx, hyenas, dogs, foxes, jackals, and wolves
You'd feed and breed enough bunnies to feed ALL of these carnivores A grand total of a whopping 20 animals?
You're assuming I can't name more? Hundreds more? Easily? You must know better than that. I'll get started if you like. Has your ark got a place to breed crickets to feed the centipedes to feed the centipede-eating snakes?
Eight people are going to feed, tend, and shovel shit of these thousands of animals? It would be LITERALLY a full time job
Yes. And their hands are already overwhelmed. See my first comments above.
for just a couple dozen species, much less that required in this tall tale. Exaggeration to that level to childish, doll.
I normally HAVE a couple dozen species in my care. They're much smaller and still time-consuming. I've worked in zoos, pet stores, and farms. *I* am not exaggerating. A ship which carried all "kinds" of animals in pairs for a year is an extreme exaggeration. Eight people shovelling a boxcar full of food every day, and a boxcar full of crap every day for a year is an impossible exaggeration. Salt intolerant animals "migrating" 12000 miles to get to a boat in which they'll live another year before swimming back is an impossible exaggeration. A five MILE depth of rain falling in 40 days, AND then vanishing is TWO impossible exaggerations. A single global flood which neatly layers multiple habitats on top of one another in the fossil record is a highly improbable exaggeration. That such a flood would deposit fossils and sediments on TOP of mountains is abysmally unlikely. Extreme exaggeration is the BEST you can hope for in your scenario, and absurdly impossible is a far more fair description.
As for addressing each issue personally, why should I? Several people have already done credible jobs of that, more than once in some cases. If you can't or won't refute them, why should I repeat? Besides, many of the arguments apply equally in the several creationism/evolution threads, which I KNOW you've seen. If I can invalidate your claims there, I can do so here. How many pages would you like me to copy and paste? Maybe I can just find you a good book which addresses the myriad wonders of the natural world while maybe skimming over the "evolution" bits? How about a couple books on history or archaeology of the middle east? You could gain an appreciation for just what a complex and intricate world your creator devised. I'm not interested in your faith. I am dismayed by the fact that an apparently intelligent person is so weak in her faith that she must disregard the wealth of life, the wealth of evidence [which you believe your God created], because the Word came from God's mouth, was set down by the hand of man, interpretted by another man, translated by another man, copied by another man, interpretted by another man, translated by another man...and not ONE of them fucked it up or colored it to their liking? Just like millionaire televangelists are sin-free, crusaders and inquisitors were "loving", and an assortment of priests around the world were "celibate"? Your faith in "God" is entirely dependant upon the veracity of the writings and interpretations of man, and THOSE have a proven history of unreliability. When the leaders of one of the world's largest and oldest Christian churches are able to reconcile real world fact with their faith, and accept that the Bible is not meant to be completely literal, I have to wonder why anyone would cling to these notions. I strongly suspect that every one of those church leaders is a good deal more well-read in the Bible, Biblical history and archaeology, and origins of the faith than any one of us in these forums. Following their lead in this would not be a false appeal to authority, although following Gish, Morris, Snelling, White, or Woodmorappe as scientific authorities on this most certainly is, since their very claims deny their scientific objectivity [at very least]. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 12:18:32 PM | "Is the flood story the only thing that's keeping you from Jesus?"
What was the students reply?
He replied "No, it's not." The flood story just happens to be one of the weaker links in the chain, so to speak. Believers are exhorted to give reasons for why they believe. So, too, should unbelievers be able to give reasons for their unbelief, I think, when they're surrounded by believers. Many cannot, but most on POF sure can!
Disbelieving not only authors of the Old Test. and the New Test as well, (many Books there confirm this story) might be a possible reason you no longer believe. ??
Nope. Like I said, even the apologist conceded that the flood did not cover the entire earth. I think you're missing the point of the OP here. He offers a very possible factual foundation for the story in the Bible.
I no longer believe because my belief was based upon indoctrination at an early age, my gullibility, my ignorance, and a need to believe on my part. All, except for maybe the last one, are rather flimsy foundations. I also saw the contradiction of a book penned by man talking about how fallible man is, and then claiming to be infallible itself.
The Christian faith stands on the foundation that Its writers spoke Truth
There are many different levels of Truth. Literal truth is merely one of them. "The Wizard of Oz" probably contains a few truths. There's at least one rabbi who claims that Moses might be a mythological person, but that his reality isn't required for Judaism to be a valid religion, see? As FrogO has pointed out, literalists put themselves in a fragile position. They must willfully blind themselves to evidence and knowledge that mounts daily to preserve their faith. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 12:47:52 PM |
This thread is really funny. Why would people be so motivated to prove/disprove a biblical story I'll never know.
Because truth has value, when they attempt to reverse the entire understanding of human history because they've based their faith on the weak strawman of biblical literalism. It becomes a concern.
It's similar to how they want knowledge of biology thrown out the window. | |
|
as~is
|
Joined: 12/1/2007
Msg: 97 | |
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 12:59:28 PM | BEAT that dead horse people BEAT IT HARD!!!! You'll make it beg for mercy soon! Running away with tangents galore:
OP about a history channel show and an interesting story and the thread gets hi-jacked into OMF*ing G-D!, a post about the validity of the Bible and since the time of Adam.....
What about since the time of Lillith, since she was created first? C'mon! I wanna bring Lillith in the argument!!!!!
Do note, slipped in here, one of my favorite scriptures regarding the fact that God, in his omnipotent desire, wants EVERY soul saved.
Since He always gets what he wants, then none of us have a gaddammed thing to worry about. Eat, drink, and be merry, party to our heart's content, for tomorrow we die and we're saved anyway!!!! (both halves of the statement 100% scripturally supported with more weight than perhaps any other doctrine) Note: to the argumentative, yes, I have studied the bible, ALL of it, and studied without a doctrine to translate nor a spoon to feed me. I have even read what's available of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Torah with commentary, and many of the Gnostic texts found at Nag Hammaddi and elsewhere. I've also studied the religious texts of many other religions. There's a lot in common that they all share, particularly a catostrophic flood story. No, don't test me, I won't find that amusing at all.
Which is why I like heathenism. We don't gotta believe the myths literally. We don't even have to worship diety. We kinda just invite the imperfect but powerful over for dinner and tell 'em how much we appreciate having them around. Then we party.
Only major issue with Heathenism, is that nazi's and hater got ahold of it, but us lovin' color blind folks are takin it back. Heathenism also has something of a flood story pre-dated all y'alls, and hey, btw, my last name is older than Christianity, one of the oldest recorded and it comes directly from a Heathen, who was supposedly directly decended from His God, so uh, heeeeeeey, I am *divine* LOL, and given the population at the time, one of my ancestors was probably less than six degrees of separation from knowing Jesus, whose uh, NAME was NOT Jesus, not possible, not freakin possible. The next time someone goes on about the POWER of the NAME of JEEEEEZUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS KEEEEEE RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIST ask that person how could there be power in a name that was not his? Can't I call him Yeshua? That'd be a closer bet, and about the Christ thing. Christ is Greek translation for Messiah. Messiah is a Jewish term. In NO WAY WHATSOEVER has, had, or even WILL (should we 100% believe that all will come as we've been told) Jesus meet the definition of the Messiah as predicted for thousands of years. It's like calling a Porche a Neon. Huh, they're both little cars, close enough! Who screwed up there? Oh, someone translating three hundred years after Jesus' death and with a political agenda to deal with his mother who was having ever increasing power .... boy am I *ever* going off on a tangent with that one......... but suffice to say that "Christ" and Messiah" were not part of early "Christianity", and the etomology for the choice of labels isn't even supported by known beliefs at the time. To get really complicated, before the group was politically referred to as "Christians, they were called "PAGANS!" LOL So he may be Son of God, he may be God, but he is not *Christ* by definition of the terminology. So there's power in the name "Jesus Christ"???? So I don't call myself a Christian. But I will call on Yeshua using the directions he himself gave.
Where all the extraneous thought came in that everything has to be taken as literall in order to be a good "Christian", I dunno, because it is evidential that even Yeshua, as a Jew. didn't for a second consider the flood story as literal. The archeological and sociological evidence is that Jews at that time didn't take a lot of stories as literal, (I don't believe that they do now). Yeshua was a Jew. Yeshua was apparently a pretty smart guy with DISCERNMENT. So I'm gonna go with the thought that Jeeeezussssss doesn't need me to believe in Noah, doesn't need for me to believe the flood was global or exactly as stated, doesn't even need me to believe in the Garden of Eden exactly as stated.
Break- although, did ya all watch the History channel show on the Garden of Eden? What about the show on the shroud with the FINALLY logical theory regarding the bleeding after *death* which means the shroud either wasn't on jesus or that jesus SURVIVED-highly likely- and ya otter read one of my favorite books, Return to Soddam and Gomorrah by Charles Pelligrino, awesome and factual and full of DISCERNMENT ( it's the only thing I'm really trying to beat into the horse, that discernment thing) - back to our program
and Jesus doesn't need for me, or anyone to argue ad nauseum about the accuracy of any mythology so as to walk in a message of love and understanding.
To OP, I don't have a TV, but I'll try to check it out at the library, sounds like an interesting show. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/13/2008 10:21:41 PM | This is another case of attempting to make history fit the bible rather than the other way around.
The bible is a religious and not a historical tome.
Any attempts to make it otherwise always end in failure. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/14/2008 3:36:04 AM | YOU SAID"
In talking to geologists,it was shown that there was no evidence of a global flood
==================================================
Ummm what about the end of the ice age of 10500 CE where water rose 300 feet.
Wouldn't that be considered a flood?
GHPiNK | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/14/2008 3:54:28 AM | Well if we're taking the position of biblical literalism the world didn't exist in 10500 CE.
The 300 feet figure is I believe what would happen if every last bit of ice cap melted. Even if this did happen it would not be near a global flood. Many areas would remain unsubmerged. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
